Hamlet Chicken Processing Plant Fire (1991)
Background The City of Hamlet The city Hamlet was incorporated in 1897, at which point it was already established as a railroad town. The town was first built in 1870.1 The railroad that passed through Hamlet went from Raleigh to Augusta, GA, and it was through the influence of an early settler of Hamlet that the railroad was built through the town. In 1936, the town was deemed the “Hub of the Seaboard” because of its busy railroad community.2 However, as time progressed, certain railroads merged companies, leaving some tracks empty.3 In the 1980s, some tracks were removed to accommodate a growing diesel shop. This period of time decreased the power of the railroad business, thus allowing for industrialization to increase the number of factories in the area.4 The state ranked first among all the states for the number of new manufacturing plants opened by 1987.5 The Imperial Chicken Processing Plant The Imperial Chicken Processing Plant was purchased in 1980, around the time when the town was experiencing a decrease in railroad activity. Previously, the plant was used for other food product operations.6 The building was a standard, one story brick and metal structure that was designed to have three surface areas (i.e. floors and walls) that were conducive to work with food products and thus could be washed down. The plant had about 200 workers, 90 of which worked on any particular shift.7 This large amount of employees made the plant one of the largest employers in the town. The day of the fire, there were 90 people on shift.8 Most of the rooms in the plant were cooled or refrigerated in order to keep the meat being processed sanitary. The only day to day contents in the plant that were deemed flammable were the shipping boxes and the wood pallets. Overall, the plant’s fire risk, due to the cool temperatures and the small list of day-to-day flammable objects, was considered small.9 The use of the hydraulic fluid in the plant was never considered into the fire risk. The Fire The Start of the Fire Th Hamlet Chicken Processing Plant fire occurred in Hamlet, North Carolina on September 3rd, 1991. Due to a rupture of a hydraulic line near a deep fryer, 25 people perished, which resulted in one of the biggest industrial disasters the United States had ever seen. The rupture created an explosion and subsequently a fireball that destroyed the plant.1 After the fire, it was released that the processing plant had not be inspected in its 11 years of operations. Many workers disclosed that the doors were “routinely locked to keep employees from stealing chicken nuggets”.2 Along with the 25 workers that perished, 56 workers and 11 firemen were injured.3 The fire started because of rupture of the hydraulic line, which in turn caused the fireball that incinerated the Imperial Plant. This failure was due to “unsafe practice of repairing hoses carrying hydraulic fuel while continuing to maintain cooking temperatures with gas flames under large vats of oil”. 4 The hose in question, which carried highly flammable hydraulic fluid, ruptured when being repaired at the plant. Under usual circumstances, this would not have caused a disaster because the cooking vats would not have been in use due to the fire hazard. However, because the management at the Imperial Plant wanted to “minimize down-time” when making their product, the vats were left on during hydraulic line repairs.5 There were also no backups in case of failures to the system. The plant had no automatic shutoff in case of a hydraulic line rupture, and there was only one fire extinguisher within reach of the fire.6 Thus, the rupture caused highly flammable fluid to spread to the fire under the vats, creating a large-scale fire in the plant. The official statement of the cause of the fire from the Committee on Education and Labor goes as follows: The cause of the fire was determined to be the ignition of hydraulic oil from a ruptured line only a few feet from a natural-gas-fueled cooker used in preparation of the chicken. Investigators determined that during a repair operation, the incoming hydraulic line separated from its coupling at a point approximately 60 inches above the concrete floor and began to discharge the fluid at a high pressure. This high pressure and subsequent flow resulted in the hydraulic fluid being sprayed against the floor and onto the nearby cooker. Ignition of the fuel was immediate; likely from the nearby gas burners…The intense fire also impinged upon a natural gas regulator (located directly above the ruptured hydraulic line) on the supply line to the burners which soon failed and added to the fuels being consumed.7 After the fire broke out, workers were left looking for emergency exits seeing as they had very limited ways in which they could attempt to extinguish the fire. Shortly after the fire ensued, the black smoke enveloped the plant leaving the employees searching the dark, further limiting their chances of finding exits.8 The fumes became so strong that at times it only took two breaths for the workers to faint from the toxic fumes. A worker Cleo Reddick recounted that “The smoke and fumes were so strong I kept my mouth closed…I felt the need to swallow and I did… And then I fell out”.9 Reddick was one of many workers that passed out due to smoke inhalation, and other workers started to trample the bodies of workers who had fallen to the floor due to the toxic fumes. Reddick was luckily pulled out of the factory after she had passed out by one of the first responders on scene. Another worker, Bobby Quick, helped break down a door to form an escape path outside.10 As time went on, the fire department was notified after many failed attempts due to damaged telephone lines in the plant, and they managed to open exits to workers trapped inside. However, many workers were not able to escape soon enough and died of asphyxiation.11 The Aftermath After the fire workers came forward blaming the plant for blocking emergency exits that could have saved many people from injury and death.1 Shortly after the fire, a news source spread that the plant had never been inspected during its 11 years of operation, and thus a host of reforms entered the state legislator. Less than a year after the fire, “the North Carolina General Assembly passed a host of new worker safety laws”. 2 Also, the owners were fined a total of $808,000, which was the largest fine to ever be given in North Carolina at the time.3 Along with the fine, Emmet Roe, the owner of the plant, was charged with multiple counts of manslaughter. He plead guilty and served 4 years in jail.4 While some of the workers received compensation for their injuries, for many it was not enough. Medical aliments ate up the money received from the settlement. The survivors were affected by a plethora of disorders, ranging from upper respiratory issues to depression and PTSD.5 Bobby Quick, who kicked down a door to help people escape from the factory during the fire, suffered from 7 ruptured disks in his back as a result of his heroic deed.6 No one escaped the Hamlet fire without being changed in some way. Even residents of the town who were not at the factory the day of the fire were affected, because many friends perished and families were torn apart. The Causes Southern Capitalism Many blamed North Carolina’s rampant capitalism for the accident, claiming it fostered the conditions needed for a disaster of this scale. Starting from the end of the Civil War, the development in labor in North Carolina has often been aligned with capital accumulation.1 Advancements in wages and working conditions were frequently looked over in favor of capital gain. At the end of the 19th century, North Carolina was considered a part of the “new south”, which was a very attractive business environment because of the lower production costs due to low wages in the area.2 By 1987, North Carolina was ranked first among all fifty states in manufacturing plants opened, a statistic which was bolstered by the state’s other alarming statistic, its last place rank in average manufacturing wage.3 In Aulette and Michalowski’s assessment of the disaster, they determined the growth in North Carolina was economic growth without economic development. The overall lack of concern for the worker’s wages and work conditions due to the statewide acceptance of capital as a priority made it possible for the situation in Hamlet to become a disaster. Along with North Carolina’s leanings toward capital accumulation, the state’s strong opposition to unionization contributed to lack of development of worker’s rights as well as working conditions. This sentiment started at the turn of the century with North Carolina’s textile industrialists, who started a “paternalistic control of the labor force”.4 This attitude towards the labor force influenced the development of employer-employee relations in North Carolina. The violent discouragement of unionization is backed by North Carolina’s right-to-work law which hinders the strength of unions. The law states that only workers who want to pay dues and participate in a union are required to join, meaning that as high as 49% of workers can choose not to be in a union.5 This differs from the traditional model of requiring all employees to join their particular union if one is created. The smaller size of North Carolina’s unions means that if certain workers wanted to strike for higher wages, the company itself would likely be unaffected and thus no change wages due to other employees who were not a part of the union and continued to work. The extremely low rates of unionization perpetuate the development characterized by low wages. It also lowers the value of worker demands to bosses, because they may chose to ignore the request if only some of the workers chose to strike for it. A Replication of the Past This was also not the first time that a combination of rampant capitalism and opposition to unionization caused a disaster of this scale. The infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire occurred in New York on March 25, 1911, killing 145 workers.1 Similarly to the Hamlet fire, many of the emergency exits and access routes outside were blocked for fear of workers leaving early or stealing merchandise. The owners Blanck and Harris were notorious for their anti-worker policies; they paid their workers poorly and they resisted giving in to any strike demands.2 The opposition to unionization in North Carolina echoes this anti-worker sentiment from Triangle. Triangle also exhibited values of capital over workers like Hamlet because Blanck and Harris went to the extreme lengths of blocking exits and making outward opening only doors to prevent the loss of any work or merchandise.3 Triangle’s combination of failures is nearly identical to that of the Hamlet fire, and yet the managers at the Imperial plant could not recognize their shortcomings until they experienced their own disaster. The paternalistic control over labor was widespread during the turn of the century, and while places like New York slowly learned from their mistakes after horrific disasters, North Carolina continued to ignore the signs of failure until it was too late. Primary Source Analysis "Hamlet Chicken Plant Disaster" By Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon Down in Hamlet, North Carolina They had a chicken plant sure did explode Them tar heels trapped like burnin' rats Cuz the boss man chained the door closed My mama was born in A town called Hamlet Sleepy little place on the Seaboard line My papa worked on the railroad And my granny went out her mind One day the railroad '' ''It went busted Like Richmond County ain't broke enough So this Yankee carpetbagger Figured to make a little money on Hamlet's bad luck Built a brand new chicken fixin' plant And they paid that minimum wage But the boss man said no unions Or he'd move his plant far away Merele Etta Johnson She was late for work Heard a thunderin' roar out on the highway Musta been NASCAR over at Rockingham Or just Merle Etta's judgment day 8:15 in the mornin' Chicken plant burst into flames People trampled, squashed and burned up Just to keep the profit margin One iota higher everybody gotta work in this world Some folks lucky-some folks ain't But that bastard that chained the doors shut I'm gonna rip him through p!!!!!! When I was a little boy With a buzzsaw hair cut Go down to Hamlet, watch the trains Now the tourists stop on the highway '' Get a little look at the chicken plant workers' remains''1 Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon, on the album Prairie Home Invasion, produced this song, titled “Hamlet Chicken Plant Disaster”, in March 24, 1994''.1 The album was a combination of ‘Cowpunk’ songs that dealt with many social issues of the time. Other songs included on the album were titled “Will The Fetus Be Aborted?” and “Atomic Power”.2 In this particular song, the artists address the events of the Hamlet Chicken Processing Plant fire through seemingly light-hearted lyrics, however the underlying meanings are very accusatory. The song starts out identifying the fire at the plant and the cause of the many deaths resulting from the actions of the “boss man”. The next stanza brings in an introduction of the town of Hamlet, and the culture. The song identifies Hamlet as a railroad town by distinguishing the father as a railroad worker. In the next stanza, the artists identify the failing of the railroad through “One day the railroad/It went busted”.3 They also introduce a “carpetbagger” character that wants to capitalize on Hamlet’s bad fortune. This “carpetbagger” is an allusion to the industrialization that integrated itself into southern culture during the 1980s. The next set of lyrics associates North Carolina’s opposition of unionization to the Hamlet disaster through “But the boss man said no unions/Or he’d move the plant far away”.4 The song then makes an allusion to a worker at the plant, Merele Etta Johnson, and how her misfortune was unwarranted and unexpected. The next stanza calls out the bosses for their greed, and it points to this greed as a cause of the fire. “People trampled, squashed and burned up/Just to keep the profit margin/One iota higher” points out the focus on capital over the workers.5 The second to last stanza takes another rift at the “boss man” by calling him a bastard for his actions. The song ends by saying that now after the fire, a town which once was so well known for its railroads, is known only for its devastating fire. Biafra and Nixon’s song pinpoints the greed of the bosses of the Hamlet plant as a cause of the fire and its devastation. This greed was allowed to prosper due to North Carolina’s economic environment. The quick industrialization allowed for sentiments of capital priority and opposition to unions become established parts of North Carolina’s economy. "Still Burning" By Wil Haygood The article “Still Burning”, which was written by Wil Haygood in 2002 for ''The Washington Post, ''is a clear depiction of the victims of the Imperial Chicken Processing Plant fire. In the article, Haygood encompasses every aspect of the victim’s struggle, from the moment of the fire to the after effects years later. This perspective lets the audience take an intimate look into the lives of those affected. Haygood’s article provides a look at the real damage of the fire, something a police report or lawsuit could never fully describe. Haygood uses imagery and direct quotes to look into the emotions of the victims, which creates an interesting viewpoint for his piece. In Wil Haygood’s article “Still Burning”, Haygood uses an unconventional journalistic technique in order to illustrate the damage of the fire beyond the police reports and lawsuits. This incident was indeed a tragic event in the history of North Carolina. What perhaps is the most tragic part of the entire disaster is the way victims struggled to recover. Haygood encompasses this in his article by taking a profound look at the view of the victims through their firsthand accounts. In the article, Cleo Riddick remembers when fell unconscious during the fire, and recounts how lucky she was to make it out alive. She remembers, “The smoke sand fumes were going so strong that I had my mouth closed. I kept trying to breath through my nose… I felt a need to swallow and I did. It tasted bitter. And then I fell out”.1 Haygood’s used of personal accounts in his article allows for the severity of the situation to be fully emphasized. Through these accounts the reader can discern that in the Imperial Plant during the fire dying was as easy as taking a breath. A detail like this would not be included in a police report, or a report like such, because it simply adds detail to the facts already known. However, to an outside source this detail could incite anger with the company because they realize the true devastation. Bobby Quick recalls, “ feeling all of the oxygen being pulled out of that area. I looked at that locked door and seen my family flash before my eyes”.2 Through this passage Haygood showcases not only the fire itself, but also the emotional fear that would later go on to greatly affect the victims. He continues to demonstrate this emotional and mental instability through the accounts of those after the fire. Annette Zimmerman admits, “God couldn’t help me. I went on a death rage. My two best friends were dead”.3 Through all the accounts demonstrated in the article, Haygood provides the reader with an in depth look at the reality of the Hamlet disaster. Due to lack of responsibility, the managers at Imperial and the state officers who were mean to inspect the plant created immense pain in the lives of all the victims and their families. By looking at these accounts, the reader realizes that this was not simply an accident made by administrators, but a true tragedy for the people of Hamlet. Haygood aided his use of direct accounts of the victims with literary techniques throughout his piece. Most specifically, Haygood utilized imagery to further visualize the accident. When he remarks on the fire itself he says “the smoke was circling like white syrup”.4 This imagery transports the reader to the scene of the fire and strives to help spark further emotion and response. Haygood is attempting to let his audience know that the people of Hamlet are still recovering, even ten years after the fire. He proclaims this in statements like “dead are still dying” and “the whole town of Hamlet is still afire”.5 In almost lyrical passages he moves away from calling the fire an accident and instead uses rhetoric to stress that the Imperial fire was a true tragedy and disaster. He uses his imagery to elaborate on the sentiments of victims. He furthers a comment made by a survivor visiting the plant by saying in the area surrounding the plant “death was in the wind. Now, ghosts everywhere”.6 Through these added literary devices, the audience is thoroughly affected by the loss. Memory and Legacy Fictional Narrative I was buying soda on my lunch break. The two quarters in my smock jingled like bells among the regular bang and clang of the factory. But then the bells disappeared, lost in the surrounding noises. I glanced behind me quick. A plume of smoke arose before my eyes. ''The fryer. The fryer. Oh my god it’s the fryer! A stunned silence, and then a rush of hurried feet. We were a mess. A puzzle of people, all looking for a way out. The smoke of nipping at our heels. And then it was dark. We were blind mice running wild. The screaming started up soon after. Wails of woe, cries for children, terrified prayers for help. I remember I still had my glasses on. They balanced precariously on my thin nose. My small body kept looking for places to squeeze through; places to escape. Then I took a breath and my mouth filled with soot. I could taste it, heavy and black like tar on my tongue. My eyes watered as I fought to keep breathing through my nose. And then I was no longer moving. I felt feet on my back and my face firmly placed against the floor. I felt like this was my end. I though I would die a black death. And I almost did. When I saw the light again it came as a surprise. I felt myself moving, but I was not the one doing the moving. I had been pulled out; set free. But it came at a cost. As I being dragged away from the smoke, all I saw was death. Bodies like mine, covered in soot, unmoving and lifeless. It was such a gruesome scene I closed my eyes to keep the image out of my mind. Little did I know that same image would come to haunt me every night in my dreams. Race in Regards to the Hamlet Disaster After the fire, many people looked into how race played into the Hamlet disaster. Most of the workers were African American females, while the managers were middle-aged white businessmen. Although some people cited racial tensions after the fire, mainly Bobby Quick claiming that if he “had been a white man, they’d put a statue of me downtown.”1 However on the day of the fire “you couldn’t tell black from white.” 2 The soot and grease covered everyone who fell victim to it, leaving no one person above another. While race is often a big issue to “chew on” in the south, others argued that it was class rather than race that made Hamlet a disaster.3 The minimum wage workers were not as valuable as the capital to the managers, and this is shown through the locking of the factory doors to protect the goods and not the workers. Memorial In 2011, 20 years after the fire, a memorial was erected to honor the victims of the Hamlet disaster.1 This comes 10 years after the belated destruction of the plant itself, which sat unoccupied and destroyed.2 Previously, the undemolished plant served as an unwelcome reminder of the event. Since the disaster, the town has spent $13 million on beautification projects to help diminish the reminders of the disaster itself.3 The town has also revamped its railroad image, with renovations of older passenger stations to draw tourists to the area. Many in the town are torn on how to properly address the memory of the Hamlet disaster. There is a distinct difference between the people who want to honor the survivors and brave lives lost, and the people who believe addressing the disaster would be opening a wound for too many victims as well as deterring tourists with a grisly memory. The Charlotte News & Observer reported that for the 20-year anniversary, Jesse Jackson wanted to speak, but while “some survivors welcomed him and his pro-labor message, town officials and others thought it was inappropriate”.4 While the town's view on industry has developed since the accident, there are still some sentiments that remain the same. See Also Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire Workplace Fire Safety Disaster Mental Health North Carolina: Right to Work North Carolina Department of Labor Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Railroads in Hamlet Bibliography 'Primary Sources:' Biafra, Jello, and Mojo Nixon. Prairie Home Invasion. Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon. Alternative Tentacles, 1994. MP3 Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. 1991. Hearing on H.R.3160, Comprehensive OHSA Reform Act, and the fire at the Imperial Food Products Plant in Hamlet, North Carolina ''Serial No. 102-47, September Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." ''The Washington Post D.C. 10 Nov. 2002: n. pag. Print. Kilborn, Peter T. "North Carolina is Told to Improve Safety Role." The New York Times “US History in Context”.York 9 Jan. 1992: n. pag. Print. Yates, Jack. United States Fire Administration: Report to Congress - Fiscal Year 1991. Emmitsburg, MD: Administration, 1992. United States Fire Administration. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. 'Secondary Sources:' Aulette, Judy Root, and Raymond Michalowski. "Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of a State-Corporate Crime." Political Crime in Contemporary America: A Critical Approach. Ed. Kenneth D. Tunnell. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1993. 171-206. Print. "History of Hamlet." City History. City of Hamlet, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2014. < http://www.hamletnc.us/cityhistory.html> History.com Staff. "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. . "Prairie Home Invasion." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. . Quillin, Martha. "NewsObserver.com." HAMLET: Hamlet Fire Defines and Divides a Town. The Charlotte News & Observer, 4 Sept. 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. . Washburn, Mark. "Love of Railroads Spans the Carolinas." CharlotteObserver.com. The Charlotte Observer, 26 May 2013. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. . Wood, Phillip J. Southern Capitalism: The Political Economy of North Carolina, 1880-1980. Durham: Duke University Press, 1986. Print. Photos: Photos were taken from the North Carolina Burn Surge Diasater Program website. http://ncburndisaster.org/oldsite/Historical/ImperChxPlantFire.html ---- 1 Quillin, Martha. "NewsObserver.com." HAMLET: Hamlet Fire Defines and Divides a Town. The Charlotte News & Observer, 4 Sept. 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. . 2 idem. 3 idem. 4 idem. ---- 1 Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." 4. 2 ibid,. 5. 3 idem. 4 ibid., 1. 5 ibid., 7. 6 idem. ---- 1 "Prairie Home Invasion." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. . 2 Biafra, Jello, and Mojo Nixon. Prairie Home Invasion. 3 idem. 4 idem. 5 idem. ---- 1 Biafra, Jello, and Mojo Nixon. Prairie Home Invasion. Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon. Alternative Tentacles, 1994. MP3. ---- 1 History.com Staff. "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 7 Dec. 2014. . 2 ibid,. 1 3 ibid,. 1 ---- 1 Aulette, Judy Root, and Raymond Michalowski. "Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of a State-Corporate Crime." 177. 2 idem. 3 idem. 4 Wood, Phillip J. Southern Capitalism: The Political Economy of North Carolina, 1880-1980. Durham: Duke University Press, 1986. Print. 5 Aulette and Michalowski. “Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of a State-Corporate Crime.” ---- 1 Kilborn, Peter T. "North Carolina is Told to Improve Safety Role." The New York Times “US History in Context”.York 9 Jan. 1992: n. pag. Print. 2 Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." 4. 3 Kilborn, Peter T. "North Carolina is Told to Improve Safety Role." 1. 4 Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." 4. 5 ibid,. 6. 6 idem. ---- 1 Aulette, Judy Root, and Raymond Michalowski. "Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of a State-Corporate Crime." 2 ibid,. 3 Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." The Washington Post D.C. 10 Nov. 2002: n. pag. Print. 4 Aulette, Judy Root, and Raymond Michalowski. "Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of a State-Corporate Crime." 197. 5 ibid,. 197. 6 ibid,. 197. 7 Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. 1991. Hearing on H.R.3160, Comprehensive OHSA Reform Act, and the fire at the Imperial Food Products Plant in Hamlet, North Carolina ''Serial No. 102-47, September 12, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 8 Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." 2. 9 ibid,. 2. 10 ibid,. 4. 11 idem. ---- 1 Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. 1991. ''Hearing on H.R.3160, Comprehensive OHSA Reform Act, and the fire at the Imperial Food Products Plant in Hamlet, North Carolina ''Serial No. 102-47, September 12, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2 Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." 2. 3 ibid,. 2. 4 ibid,. 4. 5 idem. ---- 1 Aulette, Judy Root, and Raymond Michalowski. "Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of a State-Corporate Crime." 2 ibid,. 3 Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." ''The Washington Post D.C. 10 Nov. 2002: n. pag. Print. 4 Aulette, Judy Root, and Raymond Michalowski. "Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of a State-Corporate Crime." 197. 5 ibid,. 197. 6 ibid,. 197. 7 Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. 1991. Hearing on H.R.3160, Comprehensive OHSA Reform Act, and the fire at the Imperial Food Products Plant in Hamlet, North Carolina ''Serial No. 102-47, September 12, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 8 Haygood, Wil. "Still Burning." 2. 9 ibid,. 2. 10 ibid,. 4. 11 idem. ---- 1 "History of Hamlet." ''City History. City of Hamlet, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2014. < http://www.hamletnc.us/cityhistory.html> 2 idem. 3 Washburn, Mark. "Love of Railroads Spans the Carolinas." CharlotteObserver.com. The Charlotte Observer, 26 May 2013. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. . 4 idem. 5 Aulette, Judy Root, and Raymond Michalowski. "Fire in Hamlet: A Case Study of a State-Corporate Crime." Political Crime in Contemporary America: A Critical Approach. Ed. Kenneth D. Tunnell. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1993. 171-206. Print. 6 Yates, Jack. United States Fire Administration: Report to Congress - Fiscal Year 1991. Emmitsburg, MD: Administration, 1992. United States Fire Administration. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. . 7 idem. 8 idem. 9 idem.